Intuition vs. Rationalization and the Reflective Equilibrium of Ethics

The following is an essay I penned for my Introduction to Ethics class offered by Rutgers University, conducted by Professor Beth Henzel.

The question of whether ethics and moral judgment be based upon reason or intuition is a subject of debate as indicated in the dialogue between Joakim Sandberg, Niklas Juth and Peter Singer. The text in consideration is a response to one of Peter Singer’s papers where he argues that some interesting new findings in the field of experimental moral psychology confirms his thesis of contention that intuition should play a negligible role in adequate justifications of normative ethical positions.

Sandberg and Juth argue that even though basing ethics solely on certain kinds of intuition can be problematic, basing ethics off the standpoint of pure reason can be similarly troublesome. Instead, Sandberg and Juth suggest a more nuanced and sensible methodology to derive moral positions. They coin this methodology “reflective equilibrium” which, as the name suggests, travels the middlep path between reason and intuition taking into account both sides of the coin before settling on a decision. This is the most fair and equitable position.

In this essay I will attempt to argue on the side of Joakim Sandberg and Niklas Juth by first presenting a summary of Peter Singer’s paper and the summary of arguments against Singer raised by Sandberg and Niklas on their response to him, then providing my own argument by drawing a comparison between moral decision-making and cognitive psychological findings on how best to deal with situations that induce an emotional and a rational response.

Singer begins his paper by stating the views of moral philosopher Jim Rachel who argues that ethicists in general should not base their comments on tragic events and their moral ramifications on pure intuition subject to the orthodox view of what is right and what is wrong. Singer then goes on to say that this is a view he shares with Rachel and proceeds to explain his own standpoint by starting off with a history of moral philosophy recalling popular myths of mankind being bestowed moral guidance from a divine origin and then moving on to names of other philosophers such as David Hume and Niccolo Machiavelli. He then goes on to explanations of post-Darwinian understanding of ethics in relation to genes and reciprocity.

Following this, Singer explains the difference between “personal” and “impersonal” moral reasoning, that is, he uses the example of the “trolley problem” to show how people are quick to make personal moral decisions over impersonal ones, namely, that if a group of people are asked, assuming an empty train trolley is rolling towards a group of five and flipping a switch will save four of them but kill the fifth by diverting the path of the trolley, whether they want to flip the switch or not, majority would answer in the affirmative. However, if the group is then asked whether they want to push a large heavy man into the pathway of the trolley thus stopping the trolley at the cost of that man most would answer in the negative. Singer explains how neuroscientists have discovered that this is the case because in the latter scenario pushing the large man causes the agent to be personally involved in killing him thus stimulating more areas of the brain making the intuition against it stronger than if the agent is not personally responsible for killing one man by flipping the switch. Afterwards, Singer goes on to talk about Rawls and his analogy of normative moral theories being similar to scientific theories where he says that like scientific theories that may be best explained by plausible scenarios even if those scenarios do not comply with all the data, in which case we assume the data to be flawed and seek a balance between it and the result, moral theories have our base intuitions as raw data and we are to regulate our intuitions and our judgments until there is reconciliation between the two. Singer finds this analogy erroneous.

Singer explains the difference between a scientific theory and a theory of normative morality by expounding on their definitions. He states that a scientific theory attempts to explain why certain things happen the way they happen while normative morality does not explain why do we react the way we react to things such as abortion and voluntary euthanasia but rather what we are ought to do and how we are to react in such circumstances. This difference between the two should account for the error in Rawls’ analogy by contrasting the two.

In conclusion, Singer states that human beings may always be subject to intuition and, just like the tampering or dismissal of data to fit a plausible scientific theory, we rationalize our arguments to fit the intuition for morality. Nonetheless, Singers says there is a difference between this intuition and the base intuition that cannot be rationalized where a person says they do not know why something is wrong but they just know it is, as they did in Haidt’s experiment that Singer uses to support his paper. Singer calls the former rational intuition and concludes that this should be our methodology to arrive at moral judgments.

Sandberg and Juth start their paper off by outlining Singer’s arguments along with the experiments mentioned in his paper. They move on to explaining the two types of intuitions in Singer’s paper, namely practical and theoretical, and mentioning how Singer concludes we should derive moral codes off the latter instead of the former. Sandberg and Juth argues that Singer’s notion that practical intuitions are products of our evolutionary lineage whereas theoretical intuitions are more rationally grounded is false since the latter can be just as evolution-based as the former, also adding in the fact that for most people theoretical intuitions could be just as spontaneous as their practical ones. The gist of Sandberg Juth’s paper is basically this that both methodologies are prone to the same cons as each other.

Personally, I agree with Sandberg and Juth’s view and do believe that the reflective equilibrium approach is the best approach to arrive at moral conclusions. In the field of cognitive behavioral psychology the human mind is divided into three separated dimensions: the emotional mind, rational mind, and wise mind. The emotional mind is the loci of decisions based on emotions, intuitions, and feelings, while the rational mind is the loci of decisions derived off pure logical reasoning. The wise mind is the balance in between and, psychologists confirm, is the correct source to base our decisions off in real-life. The wise mind is the balance between validating our emotions and judging a situation properly off sound logical reasoning. Cognitive behavioral therapy attempts to teach patients to base their decisions and tackle everyday problems using the wise mind. This largely mimics the methodology of reflective equilibrium for moral reasoning.

A good example to demonstrate the contrast between the thought processes of the emotional mind, the rational mind and the wise mind is to think of a girl who walks into her room which is extremely untidy and disorganized. Looking at the room makes her feel like that there is no way she can clean up the room given how messy it is. This is the emotional mind talking. The rational mind says that just because she feels like it cannot be done does not mean it cannot realistically be done. The job is not impossible. Rationally speaking, it is, in fact, possible. The wise mind strikes a balance between the two and says that yes it is possible but it is going to be difficult which is why the first emotional instinct of the girl was to feel like it could not be done. This validates her initial emotions as well as present the reality of the situation that cleaning up the room is something that is not impossible to achieve but it is going to be a tiresome task, preparing the girl to tackle with the problem as required.

The aforementioned example can then be applied for a moral decision. Let us assume that the woman somewhere in the world is undergoing labor and her husband is frantically pleading for help. He calls the emergency unit of the closest hospital and they inform him that all their ambulances are currently engaged. Distraught, the man decides to drive his wife to the hospital himself. Rationally, at this point, the moral thing to do would probably be to follow all the driving laws for the safety of everyone on the road. However, the first intuition of the man would be to rather ignore all the laws and speed limits, and make sure that his wife is in the hospital under immediate medical attention. Nonetheless, it is morally wrong to push away the safety of everyone else on the road for the well-being of just one person, namely this man’s wife, if one were to weigh the situation logically. The best thing to do at this point would be to strike a balance and drive ignoring a few traffic rules without being too reckless while upholding a minimal level of road safety and not harm anyone else. Balance is the key.

Now, it is important to note here that just because some answers are neither black nor white, it does not mean that no answers are black or white. In other words, there can be a situation where acting upon one’s intuition is “wrong” and the rational answer is “right” or vice versa. Once again, reflective equilibrium maintains the balance by reconciling one and the other.

It can be argued that an area so gray does not provide us with a concrete understanding of what is right and what is wrong. The answers derived off such a methodology is too subjective and it does not allow us to lay down a consolidated set of ethical laws and codes of conduct for all to follow since intuition will differ from person to person and thus what may seem right to one person may be branded as ethically wrong by another. Rationally arrived codes of ethics may be more compact and therefore give us something corporeal to follow. This argument can be broken down into premises surrounding the idea that ethical codes of conduct are nomic necessary truths which can be arrived at using pure logical reasoning alone. However, this is not the case in a practical scenario, as, by pure logical reasoning alone, a person may arrive at an entirely different conclusion than another regarding the question of what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, reasoning can be just as subjective as intuition.

Also, let us assume for the sake of argument that ethical codes of conduct are nomic necessary truths that can be reached at through solely using reason. This leaves us with another problem, namely that the capability of the mental faculties of the one doing the reasoning is subject to differ from one person to another thus two people may arrive at two completely different conclusions on the matter of what is right and what is wrong due to the varying levels of their intelligence and other mental abilities.

Hence, taking all of the presented viewpoints into account it would be safest to conclude that Sandberg and Juth’s argument that rationalization is prone to similar flaws as intuition in the topic of ethics and morality, and thus, a balance between the two utilizing the methodology of reflective equilibrium is the most sound approach for an ethicist.



— Fahim Ferdous Kibria

Beauty

There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion.
It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner.
Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers.
All other things, our powers, our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in
the first instance, but this rose is an extra. Its smell and color are an embellishment of life,
not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have
much to hope from the flowers.
~ Sherlock Holmes

The quote posits religion as a science of pure reason, without practical experimentation and hypothetical theorizing – a science based completely on armchair observation and deduction, everything occurring within the mind
as it analyzes the data without the use of tabletop tinkering involving gadgets and contraptions.

The observation notes that beauty is the ultimate reason vouching for the existence of God, a good One at that, for everything else in the world can be explained away with the reason of necessity but beauty is something that exists as a bonus in reality serving no other purpose than to provide aesthetic pleasure to the soul without ensuring survival of any sort in and of itself though attraction to beauty may beg to differ but this attraction itself cannot be rationally explained for why be attracted to a feature that does not provide you with any sustenance? Attraction to food and water may appease hunger and thirst for one to nourish themselves, but what purpose does attraction to color and symmetry serve other than to appease the eyes? Yes, beauty is truly an enigmatic feature of the universe.

Beauty is not a mechanism of cold, unfeeling evolution as presented by the ideology of naturalism. It is an extra – something existing beyond natural selection; a product of the unconditional goodness of a caring, loving God. Perhaps, it is why the Prophet Muhammad said:

Verily God is Beautiful and They love Beauty.

[Sahīh Muslim, Hadith 131]

— Fahim Ferdous Kibria

Flowers

There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion,

He said, leaning with his back against the shutters.

It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner.
Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers.
All other things, our powers, our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in
the first instance, but this rose is an extra. Its smell and color are an embellishment of life,
not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have
much to hope from the flowers.

— Arthur Conan Doyle, The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes

Introduction to Philosophy — What is Philosophy?

The following are my notes from the MOOC Introduction to Philosophy offered by the University of Edinburgh.
The first lecture is handled by Dr. Dave Ward.

We start with the question: what is philosophy? Philosophy is an activity. It is the activity of working out the right way of thinking about things. It is the art of thinking about philosophical problems, and the ways other thinkers have approached them. This is what we’ll be doing on the rest of the course. A bulk of philosophy is learning specific tools and techniques to reason, argue, and express oneself.

The aforementioned definition states that philosophy is the act of thinking about things. However, the case can be made that all subjects, not just philosophy, try and think about things in the right way. This is true, but we can distinguish between thinking about things and working out the right way of thinking about things. In the second case, one steps back from what they are doing, and then proceeds to ask questions about it – what it presupposes, and whether it is the right way to go about things.

Take, for an instance, physics. Physics investigates physical reality by constructing experiments, measuring, and formulating theories. When doing philosophy of physics we might ask: what do we mean by “physical reality”?; how do experimental results prove or disprove a hypothesis?, or; what distinguishes a good scientific theory from a bad one?

Another instance, medicine. When practicing medicine we try to heal or treat people according to our current best medical theories. When doing philosophy of medicine, we might step back and think about whether the concepts our best medical theories employ make sense, or what ‘health’ and ‘sickness’ really mean.

The above examples show us that the relationship between philosophy and other subjects can be blurry – we can be interested in the right way of thinking in lots of different domains; and we are often forced to do philosophy by the challenges or results that other subjects throw up for us.

It is often claimed by philosophers that philosophy, or the questions it asks, are in some sense fundamental. What might this mean? Is it true? A sense in which it is not true: there are plenty of questions you can ask, and activities that you can pursue, perfectly legitimately without doing any philosophy. A sense in which it is true: no matter what sort of questions you are asking, or activities you’re pursuing, further philosophical questions can always arise.

This is because philosophy involves stepping back and examining the presuppositions of what we are doing, or the questions we are asking. What are these presuppositions? Are they the right ones? The answers to these propounds why philosophy, as a subject, is so broad – this ‘stepping back’ is something we can always do, whatever we are asking or thinking about.

Now, another important question is, is philosophy important? As with the claim that philosophy is fundamental, when trying to define philosophy, it is often said that the subject, or the questions it inquire, have some special importance. Is this true?

Again, there is a sense in which it is clearly not – because philosophical questions can arise about anything. There will be many that are too trivial or boring to bother asking. However, there are reasons for thinking philosophy, at its best, often is important:

• Most philosophy aims at thinking clearly about the things that matter most to us.
• Thinking philosophically can help us to question or see past dogma or accepted wisdom that may not be the best thing for us to think or believe.

Now, moving on to the procedure of philosophy. One, usually, has a good idea of how philosophy is done because trying to think about things in the right way is something we do all the time.

For example, suppose you are trying to decide whether to go to the cinema tonight.
Your decision process will involve:

• Looking around for evidence
• Why you should?
• Why you should not?
• What is on?
• Have you seen it before?
• Do you have enough money?
• Thinking about what that evidence gives you reason to do
• Perhaps you have seen that film before but it was so great that you would like to see it again;
• Perhaps you do have enough money but you should really be saving up for something else
• Coming to a conclusion about what to do, or to think, on the basis of that evidence

Suppose that, in deciding whether or not to go to the cinema tonight, one reasons like this:

1. They have good hot dogs at the cinema
2. I like hot dogs
3. Therefore I should go to the cinema

In doing so, one has given a very simple argument for the conclusion that they should go to the cinema. Looking at this, we can see that an argument, in philosophy, is just a sequence of evidence and reasoning designed to support a particular conclusion. This argument has two premises, point number-1 and 2 on the list above, as well as its conclusion, point number-3.

A very important part of doing philosophy is thinking about whether or not particular arguments do a good job of establishing their conclusions. How might we question the above argument? One way is to question whether the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of its premises. That is, if the premises are true, does the conclusion have to be true? If it does, then we say that the argument is valid. In the case of the argument above, it looks like there are lots of cases where the premises could be true, but the conclusion might not be true. The argument is invalid.

Another way is to question the truth of the premises. In the above case, this would involve finding out about the hot dogs at the cinema, and whether or not I really like hot dogs. When an argument is valid with true premises, we say that it is sound. So an argument can fail to be sound by having one or more false premises, or by being invalid.

Now let us think about a more difficult and, perhaps, more interesting argument to assess: do we have free-will?

It seems to all of us that we have a lot of freedom as to what we choose to do, or not do.
But there are arguments that try to call this into question:

1. The way the world was in the past controls exactly how it is in the present, and how it will be in the future
2. We’re part of the world, just like everything else.
3. We can’t control how things were in the past, or the way the past controls the present and future
4. Therefore, we don’t control anything that happens in the world, including all the things that we think, say, do.

It’s a lot more difficult to work out whether this argument is a good or a bad one than it was for our first argument – but we assess it in just the same ways:

• Are the premises 1-3 true?
• Does the past really fix the present and the future?
• Are we really parts of the world just like everything else?
• Does the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion?
• Does ‘control’ mean the same thing in ‘1’ as it does in ‘4’?
• If not, then perhaps what ‘1’ tells us about control does not lead to the conclusion in ‘4’.

It is not part of our task this week to think through the ways of responding to this argument in detail. But we should take note that each of the ways of responding suggested above has some work attached to it – each of the ways of responding to the argument need explained and defended in much more detail. This sort of work is what we do when we do philosophy.

In trying to come to think about some topic in the right way, we attempt to get the clearest possible understanding of the evidence in favor of our thinking as we do, and the way it supports the conclusions about the topic we arrive at.

Though trying to construct and assess arguments in favor of some view or conclusion is a crucial part of philosophy, there is more to the subject than this. A quote from the philosopher Hilary Putnam expresses this well:

Philosophy needs vision and argument … there is something disappointing about a philosophical work that contains arguments, however good, which are not inspired by some genuine vision, and something disappointing about a philosophical work that contains a vision, however inspiring, which is unsupported by arguments … 

Speculation about how things hang together requires … the ability to draw out conceptual distinctions and connections, and the ability to argue … But speculative views, however interesting or well supported by arguments or insightful, are not all we need. We also need what Burnyeat called ‘vision’ – and I take that to mean vision as to how to live our lives, and how to order our societies.

We should bear in mind the ‘big picture’ when putting forward or criticizing philosophical arguments:

• Sometimes this might involve stepping back and thinking about why a topic is an interesting or useful one to be considering in the first place
• Sometimes this might involve thinking about the vision that might have inspired an argument that we’re criticizing or evaluating – can thinking about that vision help us to understand an argument better, or perhaps do a better job of expressing what the argument is getting at?

Now we’ll move on to the question: is there a ‘right way’ of thinking about things?

We have tried to define philosophy as the activity of working out the right way of thinking about things. And we have just seen that constructing and assessing arguments is an important part of this activity. But is there a right way of thinking about things? And if there is, how do we know that we can get at the right way just by thinking?

These are really important questions for philosophy. We bring them up not because we think we can answer them, but because they emphasize something I already mentioned about philosophical questions – they can arise anywhere, even in response to the definition of philosophy I’ve been trying to give.

One motivation for asking these questions might be the thought that there is something suspicious about the notion of a ‘right way of thinking’ that we have used in our my definition – so perhaps my definition is not the right way of thinking about philosophy.

Instead of trying to answer these important questions, we want to finish by quickly considering what two great past philosophers have said about them.

The great Edinburgh-based philosopher David Hume would have agreed with the skeptical spirit of the above questions – he was pessimistic about the notion of a ‘right way’ of thinking about things, and even more pessimistic about the idea that such a ‘right way’ could be something our minds could grasp.

As a good empiricist philosopher, Hume thought that it was crucial that philosophy stay true to our sensory experience of the world. However, he argued that our experience tells us much less about the world than we usually think.
For example:

• Causation
  We never really observe one thing causing another to happen. We might see one billiard ball roll into another, and then see the second billiard ball roll off. But all we really observe are the billiard balls at various times and places.
• Our experience of one ball causing the other to roll off is something extra, over and above the times and places we see the billiard balls occupying.
• So, for Hume, causation is not something we observe in the world. It is something extra that our minds add to the events we observe.
• Ourselves
  We never really observe ourselves – we might observe various thoughts, feelings, impressions as they pass through ‘our’ mind, but we never observe the single subject that is supposed to unify all these.
• So, for Hume, the idea of a persisting self, over and above the various thoughts and feelings that pass through ‘our’ minds is something extra that our minds add to what we really observe. Do these habits of our minds – to experience the world as if it contained causally connected events; to experience ourselves as more than bundles of impressions and feelings – corresponded to the way things really are in the world? In other words, are they the right ways of thinking about causation and ourselves?

Hume thought that we could not know the answer to these questions – all we can know is that these are the habits our minds do have, not whether those habits are the right or the wrong ones.

This led Hume to the gloomy conclusion that,

The observation of human blindness and weakness is the result of all philosophy, and meets us at every turn, in spite of our endeavors to elude or avoid it.

The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant said that these ideas of Hume’s awoke him from his dogmatic slumbers. Previously Kant had assumed that philosophical thinking could put us in touch with the world, but he now realized he had to prove this.

Kant’s views are very complicated – but, in a nutshell, he tried to show that the possibility of a world that did not conform to the rules and patterns that our mind imposes on experience was nonsensical.

Hume was right to point out that philosophical reflection uncovers ways that we can’t avoid thinking about and experiencing the world – as stretching through space, as unfolding over time, as containing causally connected events. But he was wrong to suggest that these might just be facts about us – arbitrary habits of our minds. Kant tried to show that they were also facts about what it is for a world to be there to think about in the first place.

If we try to think about a world that doesn't conform to the above ways of thinking, we find we can’t do it. Perhaps we think we can imagine the bare possibility that the world does not conform to these ways of thinking, even if we can’t imagine exactly how that would go. But we can understand Kant as suggesting that, if we can do that, we’re no longer thinking about some way our world might be.

Put even more briefly, Kant tried to show that the rules that govern our thought are the same as rules that govern the world, and that we can know this just by thinking about it. So, for Kant, there is a right way of thinking about things, and we can arrive at it by the clear and careful use of reason.

We have barely scratched the surface of the complex and interesting ideas of Hume and Kant above – but these quick sketches show us that one of the exciting and challenging aspects of philosophy is the way it can bring us into dialogue with great thinkers of the past as we try to clarify our own ideas.

— Fahim Ferdous Kibria

Ratio @ Rutgers — Ep. 1 Faith and Reason

12 Differences Between the Asha'ris and the Maturidis

Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Asha‘ri is the Imam of the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah and at their forefront, followed by Imam Abu al-Mansur al-Maturidi. Some of the shuyukh have mentioned that the companions of Imam ash-Shafi‘i and his followers follow Imam al-Asha’ri in matters of doctrine and follow Imam ash-Shafi‘i in matters of law whereas the companions of Imam Abu Hanifa follow Imam al-Maturidi in doctrine and follow Imam Abu Hanifa in law.

There is no contention between the two scholars and their followers except in twelve issues. Sheikh Sa‘id Fawdah wrote in Sharh Risalah al-Ikhtilaf bayn al-Asha‘ira wa al-Maturidiyya,

It is not hidden to the reader that the scholars mentioned more than this number of issues over which there is disagreement. It seems, however, that the author chose to limit them to this number due to their obvious nature.

Firstly, Imam al-Maturidi said that takwin, creation, is an Eternal Attribute that subsists with Allah’s Being, as do all of His Attributes, and that it is distinct from that which is brought into existence, mukawwan, and that it is linked with that which is brought into existence in the world and every part of it from the time of its inception. Just as Allah’s Will is Eternal and linked with that which is willed at the time of its existence, so too is His Omnipotence Eternal and linked with that which is decreed.

Sheikh Sa‘id Fawdah wrote in Sharh Risalah al-Ikhtilaf,

In other words, takwin is a Pre-Eternal Attribute that subsists with Allah and has a contingently effective lineage with that which is brought into existence at the time it is brought into being. 

For this reason, the scholars say that takwin is different from that which is brought into existence, mukawwan, because takwin is a Pre-Eternal Attribute and that which is brought into existence is contingent. 

For this reason, the claim of some of the Rashawi that the Maturidis agree with them that contingents subsist within Allah’s Entity is incorrect. This is fallacious because according to the Maturidis, takwin is Pre-Eternal and not contingent. It is not to be called an Attribute in an unrestricted manner; rather it is an Attribute from which actions issue forth.

Imam al-Asha‘ri said that it is a contingent Attribute that does not subsist with Allah’s Being and according to him, it is from the Attributes of Action and not from the Eternal Attributes. As he saw it, the Attributes of Action are all contingent, such as takwin and bringing into existence and the emergence of the world with the Statement, “Be.” Therefore, according to Imam al-Asha‘ri, Takwin is a description for the self-same effective linkage of power by taking note of its effect, whereas according to Imam al-Maturidi, it is the Pre-Eternal Attribute from which the creation and that which is brought into existence come.

Secondly, Imam al-Maturidi said that the Speech of Allah, the Exalted, is not heard. rather, what is heard is that which points to it. Imam al-Maturidi said that which is heard, masmu‘, only applies to that which connects with the sense of hearing. According to him, that which connects with it are the sounds that points and indicates towards the Pre-Eternal Attribute. As for the actual Pre-Eternal Attribute, both Imam al-Maturidi and Imam al-Asha‘ri held that it has no connection with the senses and that the senses have no connection with it. The disagreement is regarding whether a Pre-Eternal Attribute being heard or not. For Imam al-Maturidi, hearing is conditioned upon the connection of the senses, and for that reason he denied that Inner Speech, kalam nafsi, can be heard.

Imam al-Asha‘ri said that it is heard – as is well known in the story of Moses. Sheikh ibn Furak said,

Two things are heard during the recitation of the reader: the voice of the reader who is reciting and the Speech of Allah the Exalted.

Qadhi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani said, “Allah’s Speech is not heard in the conventional sense; rather, it is possible for Allah to allow any of His creation that He wills to hear it, contrary to customary means and contrary to it being with the medium of letters and sound.”

Imam Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini and those who follow him said, “Allah’s Speech is not heard at all.” This was the chosen view of Imam Abu al-Manswur al-Maturidi as found in al-Bidayah.

Thirdly, Imam al-Maturidi said that the Creator of the Universe is described with wisdom, hikmah, whether that wisdom takes the meaning of knowledge. ‘ilm, or the meaning of perfection or mastery, ihkam. The Imam said that Allah is described with wisdom and that wisdom is a description of Allah’s Entity. This refers either to the knowledge of the precise or perfected actions or it refers back to the Pre-Eternal Attribute of Takwin that he affirmed. This means that mastery and precision are from the implications of Takwin.

Imam al-Asha‘ri said that if wisdom takes the meaning of knowledge then it is an Eternal Attribute that subsists with Allah’s Entity, and if it takes the meaning of perfection or mastery, then it is a contingent quality akin to Takwin, and the Entity of the Creator is not described with it.

Fourthly, Imam al-Maturidi said that Allah wills obedience or disobedience for all beings, be they essences or accidents; however, obedience occurs by Allah’s Will and Decree and His Pre-Ordainment and Predestination, Pleasure, Love and Command whereas disobedience occurs by Allah’s Will and Decree and His Predestination and Pre-Ordainment but not with His Pleasure, Love or Command. Imam al-Asha‘ri said that Allah’s Love and Pleasure are inclusive of all things just as His Will.

Sheikh Sa‘id Fawdah wrote in Sharh Risalah al-Ikhtilaf,

As for Imam al-Asha‘ri, the Ustadh reported that he believed Allah’s Love is inclusive of every accident, be it an act of obedience or an act of disobedience. This general statement suggests that Allah the Exalted loves disobedience. The correct view is that this is not the doctrine of al-Asha‘ri. 

On the contrary, he said that Allah loves disobedience insomuch as He punishes on account of it, just as He loves obedience insomuch as He Rewards on account of it. There is a distinction between this and what Ustadh ibn Kamal Basha and others mentioned and ascribed to al-Asha‘ri.

Fifthly, according to Imam al-Maturidi, being legally ordered with that in which there is no capacity to endure is impermissible, whereas being burdened with that which cannot be borne is permissible. Imam al-Maturidi distinguished between being legally ordered and being burdened. According to Imam al-Asha‘ri both are permissible.

Sixthly, Imam al-Maturidi said that some of the rulings that relate to legal responsibility, taklif, are known by the intellect, because the intellect is a tool by which the goodness and evil of some things can be comprehended, and it is a tool by which the obligation of faith is comprehended, as well as the obligation of gratitude to the Giver of Bounties. The One Who makes this known and obligatory is Allah the Exalted; however, it is through the medium of the intellect, just as the Apostle made the obligations known and the One Who made things obligatory in reality is Allah the Exalted, but it was through the medium of the Prophet. Imam al-Maturidi said,

No one is excused by ignorance of his Creator due to whatever that he sees in the design and creation of the Heavens and the Earth.

He also said,

Had Allah not sent a Messenger, still it would have been obligatory for creation to know Him through their intellects.

Imam al-Asha‘ri said that nothing is made an obligation or a prohibition except by the Sacred Law – not the intellect, even if the intellect is able to comprehend the goodness and evil of some things. According to Imam al-Ash‘ari, all of the rulings that relate to legal responsibility are taken from Revelation.

Seventhly, Imam al-Maturidi said that the wretched person could become felicitous and the felicitous person could become wretched. Imam al-Asha‘ri said that there is no consideration given to either felicity or wretchedness except during the End, Death, and Requital.

According to Imam al-Maturidi, felicity is defined as Islam and wretchedness is defined as disbelief.
According to Imam al-Asha‘ri, felicity is dying upon Islam and wretchedness is dying upon disbelief.

Eighthly, Imam al-Maturidi said that it is rationally impermissible for disbelief to be pardoned. Imam al-Asha‘ri said that it is rationally permissible but textually impermissible. Imam al-Ash‘ari’s view is based upon a rational judgement alone, whereas Imam al-Maturidi’s view is based on observation of Allah’s Will.

Ninthly, Imam al-Maturidi said it is rationally and textually impermissible for the believers to abide eternally in the Hellfire and for the disbelievers to abide in Paradise. Imam al-Asha‘ri said that it is rationally quite permissible, but textually impermissible.

Tenthly, some of the Maturidis say that the name and the thing named, al-ism wa al-musamma, are one and same. Imam al-Asha‘ri believed that there is a distinction between the two and the “act of naming,” tasmiya. Some of them divided a name into three categories: itself, other than itself, and a third category that is neither itself nor other than itself. There is agreement that the act of naming, tasmiya, is other than them, the name and the thing named, and it is what is established with the one named. This is taken from Bidayah al-Kalam.

Eleventhly, Imam al-Maturidi said that being male is a condition for Prophethood, and consequently, he said, it is absolutely impermissible for a woman to be a prophetess. Imam al-Ash‘ari said that being male is not a condition for it, and that being female does not negate it. This is taken from Bidayah al-Kalam.

Twelfthly, Imam al-Maturidi said that the action of the servant is called an acquisition and not creation, and that the Action of the Real is called creation and not acquisition – and both are inclusive of action. Imam al-Asha‘ri said that “action” denotes the Real bringing into existence and the acquisition of the servant is called “action” only figuratively. It has been said, “That which is permissible for the Almighty to be singularly is called creation, and that which is impermissible for the Almighty to be described with is acquisition.”

The gist of this disagreement is that Imam al-Asha‘ri held that the word “action” is literal when applied to Allah since He is the Doer, and is figurative when applied to the servant. Imam al-Maturidi on the other hand, held that the word “action” is also literal when applied to the servants.



— Imam Shamsuddin Ahmed ibn Sulayman ibn Kamal Pasha, The Disagreements Between Asha'ris and Maturidis, exegesis by Sheikh Sa‘id Fawdah from Sharh Risalah al-Ikhtilaf bayn al-Asha‘ira wa al-Maturidiyya, transmitted via Sidi Terence Helikaon Nunis of A Muslim Convert Once More

Creed of the Ahlus-Sunnah w'al-Jama'ah

The word for creed in Arabic is ‘aqidah. Linguistically, it means to bind a knot firmly and tightly. And in the terminology of the sciences, it is a belief held strongly and with conviction in the hearts of humans, whether it be true or false. This strong belief is a motivator to action, such as is the case with the belief of a Muslim in the absolute necessary existence of Allah subhana wa ta'ala and the veracity of the Prophet sallallahu wa alayhisalam.

History attests to the fact that all peoples at all times have had an ideology or religious creed to which they assent, which moves them to action and which has an impact on their behavior and conduct. The Islamic creed consists of a firm belief that Allah, Lord of the Worlds, is the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth; that there is only one Allah Who can be characterized by all perfections, Who Transcends all deficiencies, and Who is unlike any other being; that Muhammad is His Prophet and Messenger to the Worlds, and that he fulfilled this mission in the most perfect and complete manner; that the Qur’an is His Book, truthful and untouched by any falsity; and that what it conveys of matters unseen – for example, Angels, other Prophets, Paradise, and Hell – is all true.

The Messenger believeth in what hath been Revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His Messengers: "We make no distinction between one and another of His Messengers." And they say: "We hear and we obey; We seek Thy Forgiveness, Our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys." 

On no soul doth Allah place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns and it suffers every ill that it earns. Pray: "Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget or fall into error; our Lord! Lay not on us a burden like that which Thou didst lay on those before us; Our Lord! Lay not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Blot out our sins and grant us Forgiveness, and have Mercy on us, Thou art our Protector; Help us against those who stand against faith."
[Quran 2:285-286]

This set of beliefs moves he who possesses them to hold fast to the rules of the shari’ah and the commands and prohibitions of the Qur’an and the sunnah.

The first tenet of belief is the belief in tawhid, that is, to believe in the Oneness of Allah, worshiping Him alone, and affirming this belief of His Essence, His Qualities and His Actions. It is also to affirm that there is no entity which resembles His Indivisible Essence; that there are no qualities which resemble the Divine Qualities, in which plurality is not possible such that one can say Allah has two Wills or two independent sets of Knowledge, for example; and that His Actions do not admit of any association – there is, that is to say, no action other than His, and any action of another is to be regarded as acquisitive, kasb.

What has been said by the theologians with regards to monotheism can be simplified as follows: It is the belief that Allah is other than anything that can be conceived by the imagination; it is the belief that His Essence in no way resembles other entities, nor does It compromise His Qualities; tawhid is, in fact, a developed science derived from certain and definitive proofs since it enables one to establish religious beliefs via argumentation and repelling doubts; and it is concerned with the Essence of Allah, and what is necessary, impossible, or permissible to affirm of It. It is also concerned with the Messengers, what they brought affirming the existence of a Creator. Finally, it treats Revelatory Data, and the necessity to believe in it.

The benefit of the science of tawhid is that it leads to knowledge of Allah through definitive proofs, and the attainment of eternal happiness as a result. Because it is connected to the knowledge of Allah and His Prophets, it is the most noble of sciences. As the Arabic saying goes: Things are ennobled by that which they are connected to.

Learning this science is an individual obligation for every person, male or female, as established by the verse which directs all to:

Know, therefore, that there is no god but Allah... [Quran 47:19]

Technically, the obligation is to know the creed in a general way, i.e. it is wajib 'ayni; while a knowledge of the particulars and details is a communal obligation, i.e. it is wajib kifa'i.

The science of tawhid discusses three matters:

1. Divinity – that which has to do with Allah,
2. Prophecy – that which has to do with Prophets and Messengers, and,
3. Revelation – that which treats matters which cannot be proven except through revelatory reports.

Regarding proofs, these are of two types: purely rational, such as that which establishes the Existence of a Creator through the Creation of the Heavens, the Earth and ourselves; and the Revelatory, which is in fact a combination of rational and revelatory premises, because the veracity of a report can be established only by reason. These proofs may establish definitive certainty in shari’ah matters when they are mass-transmitted or accompanied by empirical evidence. However, in cases where they do not accord with a reason-based proof, the latter is given priority, for to disregard reason would be to disregard both types of proofs since the latter is a hybrid.

Let us first look at the argument from epistemology and ontology. The philosophers say that that which may be known are either non-existent, existent in the mind, or existent in the world. And that which has extra-mental, worldly existence is either necessarily existent, i.e. it is impossible that it not exist, or it is contingently existent.

The theologians say that the existent is that which has a reality in the world, and it is either Eternal or it is Created. The Created is further divided into two: the Substance and the Accident. The contingent, al-mumkin, is that which is necessarily in need of a cause. It may be either existent or non-existent, in equal probability. The contingent is always Created, never Eternal.

The Essentially Necessary is Allah, Who is Simple, not compound. This is because to be compound means to be contingent, created and admitting divisibility. This also means He does not admit association because that would entail being compound. Allah transcends all and every similitude. His Qualities include Life, Knowledge, and Power. These Qualities are Eternal, and do not compromise His Necessity of Being, nor do they render Him needy of anything, for His Qualities are not other than Him.

To be created means to be preceded by non-existence. The world is everything other than Allah the Exalted. The world is made of substances and accidents. Substances are entities that are independent of place. Accidents are qualities that are connected to substance, such as color, taste, smell, life, death, will, power, and knowledge.

The Createdness of the World is proven as follows: All of existence can be classified as either Eternal or Created. The Eternal is that which is preceded by nothing else. It is necessary of existence. It is impossible for the eternal to not be, for eternality contradicts non-existence. The Created is that existent which is preceded by another. It may both exist and not exist. So, when it is distinguished by existence rather than non-existence, it is in need of something that performs that distinguishing for it. This Entity is a Creator characterized by Volition and Power.

All that is not void of created entities is Created. Nobody in the world is void of Created accidents and changeable states. The qualities of the bodies change, and they move from one state to another. The reality of changeable entities is that in fact one state is annihilated and another is created. This is known in the case of the new state by observation, and in the case of the old state because, if it were eternal it would not have become non-existent.

Therefore, it is necessary to believe firmly that the world, all its bodies, including all sorts of vegetation and animals; all actions; all utterances; and all beliefs are Created. They came to exist after non-existence.

Belief in the Existence of the Creator is the first pillar of Islamic doctrine. All other doctrinal principles are built upon it. And believing in this existence is the only path to attaining a correct understanding of Creation, and the meaning of existence in this world.

The world that we see is contingently existent which means that the mind precludes neither its existence nor non-existence. Therefore, there must be some external cause which made it existent, and distanced it from non-existence. In its default mode, the world and its entities are possible of both states. And the Cause that made it existent and not non-existent is what we call Allah, the Exalted.

Every rational person, through observation, has the ability to know necessarily that Creation came into existence after non-existence, i.e. it was Created. That which is Created is in need of a Creator. An infinite regression of such creators is impossible, as all rational people agree. Infinite regression means that a created entity has a creator, and that creator has its own creator, and on and on with no end. This infinite regression, on whose impossibility all rational people agree, cannot be avoided except by positing an Eternal Creator, Who is in need of no other, Whose Existence needs no Originator. This is Allah, the Necessarily Existent, Who is not a compound being nor multiple. He is One.

If all existences were simply contingent, and none of them were necessary, this set of contingently existent entities – which encompasses all existent entities – would be in need of an Originator. This is because the set is itself contingent, a compound entity made of a set of contingent entities. However, the Necessary of Existence is Independent in His Existence. He does not need any other entity for His Existence. And He is outside of this set. Therefore, He is the Creator.

Contemplating and knowing Allah is an obligation by consensus, whether it is by Revelatory means as the Ash’ariyyah say, or by rational ones as the Mu’taziliyyah say. The primary obligation is to know Allah, and the means to achieving it is speculation so it is also an obligation. However, speculation is not possible without an intent to engage in it. Therefore, the intention is also an obligation, indeed the first obligation. By contemplation it is meant as the tools and methodologies through which knowledge is organized so as to lead from one piece of information to another. Alternatively, it is defined as abstracting the mind away from insignificant matters and orienting it to the objects of reason. When this is done properly, what results is necessary knowledge.

This is an obligation, because in matters of doctrine, following another based on his or her authority is a sin for someone who is capable of engaging in theoretical and rational thought. If he is not capable of this, it is not a sin. Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi says,

"Our companions agree that the masses are believers and knowers of Allah, and they will populate Heaven, as we are informed in reports and as is agreed upon by scholars. For their natural state leads them to Monotheism and belief in the Creator’s Eternality and the Createdness of all else, even if they are unable to articulate this in the terminology of the theologians."

Imam Saifuddin al-Amidhi reported agreement that those who attest to the correct doctrine based on authority are not disbelievers.

The difference of opinion obtains when we turn to the judgement in the Hereafter. In matters of this world, there is no disagreement that we are to judge based on apparent attestations alone. So, he who attests to the doctrine of Islam is to be treated as a Muslim, and not pronounced a disbeliever. So, he may marry other Muslims; he may lead the prayer; his slaughtered meat may be consumed; Muslims may inherit from him, and he from them; and he is to be buried in their cemeteries.

Now let us move on to the subject of belief, Imaan, which is to attest to all that is brought by the Prophets and is known necessarily to be of the religion, both in generalities and particulars, everything brought forth by Muhammad constitutes submission to Allah, Islam, outside of which there is no Salvation. As Allah says in the Qur'an:

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my sacrifice, my life and my death are for Allah, the Lord of the Worlds: No partner hath He: this am I Commanded, and I am the first of those who bow to His Will."
[Quran 6:162-163]

It is necessary that one submit to this, for there is no salvation in the eyes of Allah except by entering into Islam:

Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been Revealed to us and what was Revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets, from their Lord; we make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)." If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.
[Quran 3:84-85]

Islam is the Religion of Allah with which all other Messengers had been sent:

Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian, but he was true in faith and submitted his will to and joined not gods with Him. [Quran 3:67]

The formula of testimony is:

I bear witness that there is no god but Allah;
And I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

For one who is capable of uttering it, it is obligatory for the validity of his faith. It may be uttered in a language other than Arabic, though it is better to use the Arabic wording. Simply uttering the words is not sufficient if the speaker does not understand the meaning of what he is reciting.

Articulating the formula of testimony is a condition of one being considered a Muslim in legal matters, such as inheritance, marriage, leading prayer, being eligible for the funeral prayer, burial in Muslim cemeteries, and being subject to the demand to pray and pay the zakat. This is because silent affirmation in one’s heart, though it constitutes belief, is hidden, and we are in need of a visible sign of one’s Islam.

He who attests with his tongue, but not his heart, is a hypocrite. Though he is not a Muslim in the eyes of Allah, he is to be regarded as a Muslim in this world, provided he does not betray any visible indication of his disbelief, such as prostrating to an idol or abusing a copy of the Qur’an.

The rejecter is one who refuses to utter the formula of testimony. He is a disbeliever both in the eyes of Allah and in the consideration of people in this world. An affirmation of the heart is of no consequence. He who is confronted by doubts must seek to dispel them either through rational speculation or by asking someone of knowledge. He who is confronted by temptations should seek refuge in Allah, and say “I believe in Allah and His Messenger.” Concerning the children of Muslims are considered believers, and are to be treated as such in this world even if they never articulate the formula of testimony their whole lives.

Regarding the Nature and Attributes of Allah, there are some things that cannot be affirmed of Allah. In short, He is Transcendent, and free of anything that indicates createdness or deficiency of any sort. Therefore, one may not attribute to Him accidental attributes like taste, color, smell, or pain. Nor is He restricted to directionality. Nor can we ascribe to him adjacency, for He is not bound by area. Neither the Earth nor the Heavens surround Him. He has neither limits nor measure.

Anything that is distinguished by directionality is restricted to a space, and therefore is capable of being joined to substances and separate from them. Anything that admits such a joining and separation with substance is connected to substance, and not void of it. Anything that is not void of substance is created like the substance it is connected to. In contrast, Allah transcends space, and connection to bodies.

We believe that the Creator of the world cannot be restricted by space, nor can He have an end. For a thing may not be so restricted except by something else, nor can he have an endpoint except by imposing a limitation on him by another entity. But the Creator is neither created, nor restricted, nor limited in any way. As Allah says:

Seest thou not that Allah doth Know (all) that is in the Heavens and on Earth? There is not a secret consultation between three, but He makes the fourth among― them nor between five but he is the sixth nor between fewer nor more, but He is with them, wheresoever they be: in the end will He tell them the truth of their conduct, on the Day of Judgment. For Allah has Full Knowledge of all things.
[Quran 58:7]

It is impermissible to attribute to Allah movement or rest, going and coming, being in a place, connectedness and disconnectedness, physical proximity and distance, size, body, form, measure, directions, or sides.

There are the Attributes which Subsist in the Divine Essence. They number seven or eight, the difference in number being due to scholarly disagreement. These attributes are eternal like His Names. If they had been created, this would mean affirming something created of the Divine Essence. It would also mean that Allah was once without them. Finally, it would indicate the need for something to endow the Divine Essence with this quality, which contradicts His Absolute Self-Sufficiency, His lack of need of anything other than Him. These are in contrast to the attributes of action which are not eternal according to the Ash’ariyyah.

The Attributes of the Divine Essence are of neither the essence, nor of other than it. The former is obvious, for it is well known that the Reality of the Essence is not the same as that of its Attributes, otherwise they would be identical. As for the latter, what is meant is that They are not of a separable other. For these Attributes are not separable from the essence, even though Their Reality is not that of the essence itself.

Whoever directs his worship to the Attributes alone has committed disbelief. And whoever connects his worship to the Essence alone has sinned. The correct path is to worship the Divine Essence characterized by Its Attributes.

These Attributes are,

1. Existence: This means the Existence of His Essence, uncaused by any other. It is impossible that He did not Exist. This sort of Perfect Existence is affirmed only of Allah. All others partake in a subordinate mode of existence, both preceded and succeeded by non-existence. This is an Affirmative Attribute, affirmed of the Essence Itself.
2. Eternality: This is a Negative Attribute, which is to say that it negates that which is not worthy of Allah – in this case, createdness, and so previous non-existence. What is meant is the Eternality of the Essence – that It never came into existence. For if It were not Eternal, It would be created, and thus in need of a creator, which creator would itself be in need of a creator. This would regress infinitely. As such, He must be Eternal. We believe that Allah has always been. A report in the Sahih of Imam Muhammad ibn Hibban has it that, "There was Allah, and there was none other than Him."
3. Everlastingness: This is also a Negative Attribute intended to exclude non-existence from His Essence. Just as we may not contemplate a cause for the generation of the Necessary Existent, we may not admit a cause for Its destruction. If we were to admit such a cause, there would be no Necessary Existent. The proof that Allah’s Existence has no end is that It would then not be Eternal, because Eternality contradicts non-existence. The existence of all other creation has both a beginning and end, except for Paradise and Hell, which had a beginning but no end. We know this through revelation and not reason.
4. Absolute Uniqueness: This is also a Negative Attribute indicating a lack of resemblance between Allah and Creation, for He is neither a body nor an accident, neither a universal nor a particular. He similarly transcends all states and attributions that, for example, can be said of humans and other entities, such as sleep, heedlessness, hunger, thirst, and need. The proof of this Attribute is that if Allah were not opposed to all created things in all qualities, He would resemble them in their createdness, or they would resemble Him in His Eternality. That is impossible.
   We believe that Allah cannot be characterized by those qualities which characterize creation. These latter are the essence of createdness, such as being restricted to a place or time, having bodily or mental needs, or weakness or incapacity. Allah is completely Transcendent. Nothing even remotely resembles him. He has neither ancestors nor descendants. Nor does he have friends and enemies in the manner commonly spoken of, though we may use these words to mean sincere devotees, on the one hand, and those who transgress his commands, on the other.
   However, it is true that we may describe humanity by some qualities we attribute to Allah, such as Knowledge, Power, Will, and Perception. However, we distinguish by stating that these attributes are Essential Attributes of Allah, but not essential attributes of humans. In the case of the latter, they are bestowed unto us as Blessings.
5. Subsistence in Himself: This means that He has no need for any other. We believe that Allah subsists in Himself. He has no need for an entity to generate Him, nor for a space to encompass him. He has been Allah since before the generation of anything else, and before the generation of time and space itself. Nor does He have directionality, though some anthropomorphists have said that He is characterized by "aboveness." This is invalid. As Qadhi 'Iyadh has said, "There is no disagreement among the Muslim jurists, ahadith scholars, theologians, thinkers, and lay people that the apparent meaning of verses that mention Allah being in the Heavens, such as ‘Do ye feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the Earth when it trembles?’ are not to be taken literally, but rather are to be interpreted."
6. Oneness: This is also a Negative Attribute in that it denies something that is not appropriate to Attribute to Allah, that is, multiplicity or quantity. Allah is neither composed of parts, nor made up of particulars subsumed under a Universal. He does not have two sets of Knowledge or two Wills that complement one another, nor does He have a Knowledge or Will that partakes in the knowledge or will of others.
7. Power: This is an Eternal Attribute of the Divine Essence through which all things come to be and come to an end in accordance with His Will. What is necessary for every Muslim to know and believe is that Allah is capable of all things. The proof that Allah is characterized by power is that if He were not Omnipotent, He would be characterized by incapacity. This is impossible.
8. Will: This is also an Eternal Attribute of the Divine Essence which has to do with realizing some of the potentialities of contingent beings. Allah’s Will is One. It originates and annihilates some things.

There are also other attributes. These include Knowledge, Life, Speech, Hearing, and Sight.

Regarding the Beautiful Names of Allah, He Himself says:

The most beautiful names belong to Allah: so call on Him by them...
[Quran 8:180]

The Names of Allah are Eternal like His Essential Attributes. This Eternality is taken to mean that either that they were suitable of Allah from pre-eternality, or that they always indicated the meaning of those names. Some like Sheikh ibn ‘Arabi took them to be equal in that they all pertain to One Essence, Allah, even though they may differ in the world. Others took them to be of varying degrees of importance.

"Allah" is itself the Greatest Name, above all others. Ninety-nine of these Names have been enumerated in a hadith in Imam at-Tirmidhi’s book on the authority of Hazrat Abu Hurairah, but Imam an-Nawawi has said that the scholars have agreed the Names and Attributes that are listed there do not exhaust the Names and Attributes of Allah. The position of the Ahlus Sunnah w'al Jama'ah is that His Names and Attributes are taught to us, for this is what indicates Allah’s Permission. This may take the form of either being in the Qur’an and sunnah, or it may be established by consensus of prevalent use, such as the Existent, the Necessary and the Eternal.

Now let us turn towards the subject of Prophecy. In Arabic, the word "prophet," "nabi," is taken from the word for "news" or "report," for the Prophet reports about Allah. The Prophet is also the one who is reported to, in the first instance, since Gabriel brings him news.

Terminologically, the word "prophet" refers to a pure human who is inspired by a Revelatory Code of Conduct on which he himself acts, even though he may not be called on to propagate it. If he is in fact called upon to propagate, he is a "messenger" or "rasul."  All Messengers are Prophets, but not all Prophets are Messengers.

The Sending of Messengers is a Great Bounty from our Lord because the phenomenon is a rational possibility, but He is under no obligation to send Messengers.

Allah has named twenty-five Prophets in the Qur’an. Their Prophethood must be believed in. It is not permissible for a Muslim to be ignorant of them. There are yet others not mentioned by name or in detail in the Qur’an. We know of them only generally, and so must believe in them in that general manner. That is to say, we must believe that Allah sent many Prophets and Messengers to every nation and group in a variety of places and times. It is ignorant to think that Allah specified only the Arabian peninsula and its surrounding areas for Prophecy.

There are five necessary requirements for Prophethood:

1. Prophets only arise among humans, not among jinn or angels.
2. Prophets must be characterized by trustworthiness and honesty, and innocence from sin.
   This is so that their testimony may be believed, and held to a high standard.
3. Prophets must be characterized by a perfect rationality, precision, and uprightness.
4. Prophets must have propagated to the people everything they had been ordered to propagate.
5. Prophets must have not concealed anything.

There is disagreement on whether a prophet must be male. Those who said he must be a male rely on the verse:

Before thee, also the messengers We sent were but men, to whom We granted Inspiration: if ye know this not, ask of those who possess the Message. [Quran 21:7]

Those who say it is not a condition that a prophet must be a male point to verses which say that the mother of Moses was inspired as well:

"So We sent this Inspiration to the mother of Moses…" [Quran 28:7]

And that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was listed in a context where many other Prophets were listed:

Those were some of the Prophets on whom Allah did bestow His Grace ― of the posterity of Adam, and of those whom We carried in the Ark with Noah, and of the posterity of Abraham and Israel ― of those whom We Guided and Chose...
[Quran 19:58]

The greatest of Prophets is the Final Prophet, Muhammad. Muslims are duty bound to love him, as we learn from numerous of ahadith.

Regarding miracles, these are the Actions of Allah in which the conventional laws of nature are broken at the hands of His Messengers so that the Messenger’s truthfulness and the veracity of his Message may be affirmed. It may be speech, like the Qur’an, or an action, such as the gushing forth of water between Muhammad's fingers, or an absence, such as the inability of the fire to burn Abraham.

The conditions for a miracle are that it be from Allah Himself, it be a breaking of the conventional laws of nature, it be inexplicable, it be at the hands of someone who claims prophecy so that his Prophethood may be established, it be in accordance with what is being claimed and what is claimed not be disproven by the miracle itself, and it not precede the claim but be made in conjunction with it.

Therefore, Prophet Jesus’ speech in his infancy, wet dates falling on Lady Mary from a dry palm tree, cutting the chest of Prophet Muhammad and washing his heart, clouds forming a shadow over him to protect him from the sun along with the peace greetings that he used to hear from stones before his prophecy are considered miracles.

The Prophet's greatest miracle was the Qur’an itself. He also had material sensible miracles, such as the splitting of the moon, the greetings offered to him by stones, trees speaking to him, the gushing forth of water between his fingers, and others.

It is obligatory for a Muslim to believe firmly that there is no Cause in the world other than Allah, and that all the apparent causes we see in the world of phenomena are deputized by Allah Himself. There is however no harm in using language that indicates causality of things other than Allah if one's beliefs are sound on this matter. For example, one might say, "This medicine was of benefit to me," or "This doctor cured me," or "The rain this year caused there to be a good crop" without any harm of falling into disbelief.

This is why there is no harm in a Muslim seeking intercession with Allah via the Relics of Prophets, as long as he believes that the only Cause is Allah. This fits with the language used with respect to the apparent causality of the world. The most obvious instance of such is the Qur’anic verse:

We sent thee not, but as a mercy for all creatures. [Quran 21:107]

If Allah has said of the Prophet that he is the cause of mercy to His servants, there is no harm in invoking this honor He has granted the Prophet.

There is also no difference between invoking him during his life and after his death. This is because his bodily life was never the reason for invoking him in this manner, such that we may say this is no longer possible.

Regarding belief in Revelation, the word used for this, sam’iyyat, refers to all that which can be known only through reports that partake in certainty. One may not be a believer in Allah in his heart, mind and soul without believing in both the seen and the unseen. The unseen we believe in is that which is not visible, which may not be perceived purely through rationality.

Believing in the unseen is the first pillar of piety. This means believing in

1. Allah,
2. the Reality of the Angels of Allah,
3. the Authority of the Divine Scriptures inspired by Allah
4. the Messengers of Allah,
5. the Reality of the Last Day and that it will undoubtedly come,
6. Fate, good or bad, and that there is nothing in the world except it was willed by Allah.

Believing in the unseen includes also believing in the existence of the Jinn whose existence is proven by definitive texts. Allah says in the Qur’an,

And He created the jinn from smokeless fire. [Quran 55:15]

So the jinn are created from fire and are asked to worship Allah Almighty and follow the Prophets and Messengers as Allah says:

I have only created the Jinn and Man so that they may serve Me. [Quran 51:56]

Also the jinn are divided into believers and disbelievers recorded in the Quran,

"Amongst us are some that submit their wills to Allah and some that swerve from justice."
Now those who submit their wills― they have sought out the Path of Righteousness.
[Quran 72:14]

Satan is one of the jinn but was expelled away from Allah’s Mercy and earned Allah’s Wrath on himself because of his disobedience towards Allah’s Direct Command to prostrate to Adam as was narrated in the Qur’an:

Behold! We said to the angels "Bow down to Adam": they bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the jinn, and he broke the Command of his Lord… [Quran 18:50]

Allah’s Eternal Wrath on Satan deems him to enter Hellfire but his Punishment is postponed until Judgment Day where he will be sentenced to excruciating pain along with those who were seduced by Satan and followed his path of evil. The jinn are inhabitants of Earth and are able to see humans unlike humans who are unable to see jinn as Allah explained in the Qur’an saying:

… for he and his tribe watch you from a position where ye cannot see them... [Quran 7:27]

Regarding the Throne, we believe it is the greatest of creation, and it is where Allah will present Himself on the Judgment Day. This Throne will be carried by eight angels on that Day but we are unable to attribute any sort of a defined or detailed description of this Throne due to a lack of knowledge about it.

We also believe in the Divine Footstool but similarly we have no available data describing it. What we know for sure though is that neither the Throne nor the Footstool are dwellings of Allah. In other words, Allah did not create the Throne out of need for elevation or superiority and did not create the Footstool out of a need for sitting down.

We also believe in the Divine Tablets, al-Lawh al-Mahfuz, and this is the first of creation. It is preserved well within the Bayt al-Ma'mur directly underneath the Divine Throne. Its length is of one-hundred years. Before creating anything else Allah ordered the Pen, the second creation of all, to write. It asked what it was to write. It was told,
“All that is going to be.”

Akin to the Throne and the Divine Footstool, the same goes for creating the Pen; it was not created for writing previously unknown knowledge nor angels asked to record the deeds of humans out of fear of forgetfulness.

Regarding belief in Paradise and Hell, these are two created entities, the first an Eternal Abode of Reward, and the latter an Eternal abode of Punishment and Fire, of levels and each person will occupy the level in accordance with his deeds. Some people might assume that the Eternality of Heaven and Hell comes in opposition to Allah’s saying in the Qur’an:

…everything will perish except His Own Face. To Him Belongs the Command, and to Him will ye all be brought back. [Quran 28:88]

But the correct interpretation of this verse is that everything in its own right amounts to nothingness because of its inability of independent self existence.

We also believe in the Reservoir from which the Prophet will serve the believers of his nation in the hereafter and we believe that whoever drinks from it shall never be subjected to thirst.

Regarding the Hour and its signs we believe there are some obvious signs like the appearance of Gog and Magog, the Emergence of the Beast, the rising of the sun from the west and the appearance of smoke. These Signs, specially the ones that are backed by definitive proofs from the Qur’an, are absolute tenets of belief and whoever denies their veracity is deemed to be a liar and a disbeliever. These Signs are part of Revelation which the mind does not have much say in as they are believed in through revelatory reports. For example, Allah says in the Qur’an:

Until the People of Gog and Magog are let through, and they swiftly swarm from every hill.
[Quran 21:96]

The questioning in the grave is authenticated by numerous prophetic reports. It is believed that the soul returns back to the body with all its five senses intact and its intellectual ability persevered to be questioned in the grave and receives its due punishment or enjoy its grace. After the burial of the dead and the dismissal of people attending his or her funeral, two angels called Munkar and Nakir are responsible for asking the deceased three questions in the language that is understood by the deceased.

The angels ask the dead about the two parts of the testimony of faith namely the Oneness of Allah and the Prophethood of Muhammad. Prophets and Saints are exempted from these questions as well as Martyrs who died for the Sake of Allah along with children because they were not eligible to understand Commands and Prohibitions ordained by Allah.

Allah Almighty has the Power to gather back the scattered particles and atoms of the body resided in a grave or spread in a desert or kept in the belly of an animal and form the human body again to be asked about his or her life on Earth. The scholars of the Ash’ariyyah theology reached a consensus that both the body and the soul combined either suffer from the ailments or enjoy the grace in the grave.

The return of the body to the spirit on the Day of Judgment is believed in as all the particles of the body is gathered again to return it to its original state to form the full human body. Allah Almighty possesses the Ability to reorganize these particles because of His Unlimited Power and Divine Knowledge.

We also believe in the Resurrection of the dead and taking them out of their graves for the Reckoning. In this day all human beings, jinn,and angels shall be resurrected along with beasts and animals.

Regarding the belief in Intercession of the Prophet on this day, it is obligatory and this noble status of wasilah is the supplication or prayer which the Prophet saved for his people until Doomsday. The meaning of intercession entails forgiveness for whoever attested to the Oneness of Allah and the Prophecy of Muhammad even if this person committed the gravest of sins.

All the other prophets also have the Right of Intercession in the Day of Judgement along with the angels, the gnostics and the martyrs. The first intercessor among all these is Prophet Muhammad. As for the intercession of others, it occurs only after reckoning and punishment over small and grave sins which were not forgiven by Allah. The importance of intercession lies in honoring the intercessor in this day and showing his great position in the sight of Allah. Therefore, the Forgiveness of sins other than polytheism is possible both through logic and revelation as intercession deems forgiveness possible. As for polytheism, it is deemed impossible through Revelation for a polytheist to be forgiven.

The Ash’ariyyah creed refuses to make a judgement of disbelief on any sinful believer in this world and it is similarly impermissible to pass a verdict of his or her eternal stay in Hellfire for sins whether minor or major. The correct approach is to delegate the whole issue to Allah.

Regarding the belief in the crossing of the Path that stretches over Hell, all will have to pass over it as a test and among the passers are the prophets, the gnostics and those who enter paradise without previous subjection to reckoning and judgement over their deeds. The description of the path is that it is thinner than a hair and sharper than a blade. Whoever is deemed to enter Paradise will succeed in crossing his way over to Heaven and whoever is deemed to enter Hell will fall over the bridge straight down to Hell.



— Mufti 'Ali Goma'ah, transmitted via Sidi Terence Helikaon Nunis of A Muslim Convert Once More